Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Firefox Toolbar Out Of Beta

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the standard-issue-plugins dept.

Google 181

wellington map writes "Google has released Firefox search toolbar (Version 1.0.20050923) after two months in beta. One interesting addition is Google Suggest, which guesses what you're typing and offers useful suggestions in real time."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. (3, Funny)

Dogers (446369) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644074)

Claims it's not compatible and refuses to install. Don't they support other beta programs? :)

Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644314)

download the .xpi, edit the install.rdf in the archive, set max version to 1.5. YMMV.

Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. (5, Informative)

job0 (134689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644341)

You can fix this but at your own risk, the extensions will load but they might not be compatible with the changes in that version of firefox. All extensions have a file called install.rdf. There is a section called maxVersion that Firefox checks to see if it should enable or disable the extension. If maxVersion is lower than the current version, then Firefox automatically disables the extension because it considers it to be incompatible.

To modify install.rdf do the following

1. Close Firefox
2. Open %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\
3. Delete extensions.rdf
4. Go to the extensions folder.
5. Now you'll have to go to every folder there and edit its install.rdf file with a texteditor such as notepad.
6. You will see something like this:
CODE
<em:targetApplication>
    <Description>
      <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em :id>
      <em:minVersion>0.8</em:minVersion>
      <em:maxVersion>1.0+</em:maxVersion>
    </Description>
  </em:targetApplication>
Change maxVersion to 1.4, save the install.rdf.

Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. (5, Informative)

jeffehobbs (419930) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644376)

Install the Nightly Tester Tools [blueprintit.co.uk] extension and it will work just fine.

~jeff

Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. (2, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644846)

Virtual +1 informative to parent, this tool is a blessing (even though it's nout enough for some extensions) for anyone using 1.5 beta of the 1.6 dev versions

Re:Shame it doesn't work with 1.5.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644434)

1) Download the toolbar .xpi [google.com] ("save as" over the link)

2) Open the .xpi as a zip file. It has seven folders and 2 files. One is "license.txt" and the other is "install.rdf"

3) Edit "install.rdf" in your Notepad-style text editor.

4) Look for this:
<em:minVersion>1.0</em:minVersion>

<em:maxVersion>1.0+</em:maxVersion>


5) Change the valor "1.0+" to "2.0+" or so (it must target your firefox number version (1.5 or whatever)).

6) Save the changes.

7) Install the extension (Ctrl+O and choose the "google-toolbar.xpi" already downloaded in your PC and just changed)

Hope this works. Cheers.

Wait.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644078)

why? doesnt firefox have a built in one...?

Re:Wait.. (1)

gitreel (628922) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644097)

Yes, it does.

Re:Wait.. (4, Informative)

gid13 (620803) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644149)

Yes, but it has limited functionality by comparison.

The new Google toolbar is neat, but it can't compete with the open source Googlebar (which Google, to their credit, offers a link to on the Google toolbar download page). Many more features like the use of Google Maps, and so forth.

The difference is so great that my browsing is significantly less efficient when browsing at someone else's computer, even if they're using Firefox.

Re:Wait.. (1)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644590)

Too bad you don't offer a link.

Re:Wait.. (3, Informative)

jpaz (512242) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644704)

Here is your link to Googlebar.

Googlebar [mozdev.org]

Re:Wait.. (1)

NMZNMZNMZ (903066) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644668)

Yes, but the official Google Toolbar is much more useful. When I switched to FF, the Google Toolbar was the thing I missed most from IE. Probably my favorite feature is that the toolbar matches what you type in the google search box.

As an aside, does anyone know how to change the order of the toolbars in FireFox? I want my bookmarks folder toolbar to be below the google toolbar. Any way to do this? I couldn't find it in the customize menu...

Re:Wait.. (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644884)

As an aside, does anyone know how to change the order of the toolbars in FireFox? I want my bookmarks folder toolbar to be below the google toolbar. Any way to do this? I couldn't find it in the customize menu...

I don't think you can easily (and it's a damn shame, though you can probably do it by fidding in the XUL files *shudder*), but you can probably switch every control from one to the other manually while in Customize mode... if you're not in a hurry that is...

Google toolbar (3, Interesting)

timecop (16217) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644104)

As most of you know, the more extensions you add to FIREFOX the slower it becomes.
With standard firefox taking ~1second to open a new window, after loading Google toolbar and couple other "extensions", opening new window in FIREFOX will take several seconds.
I'm not even talking about starting a new copy of firefox after the old ones crash, that takes anywhere from 3 to 10 seconds depending how much of it was moved out of disk cache.

Perhaps it's time FIREFOX/Mozilla developers stop adding useless features, and concentrate on making FIREFOX *fast*? I'm sorry, but opening a new window of ANY application on a Pentium-M 2.13Ghz with 1.5GB memory should NOT take more than 0.01second. IE6SP1 opens instantly, and so do new windows of the same browser. Food for thought.

The browser should be functional (2, Insightful)

infoterror (909229) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644117)

I agree. Before we start another trendy "reinventing the browser" drive, whether Flock or something else, we should at least make one that's rock-solid and fast. Firefox is great in many ways, because it's more secure than IE, but it's slower and crashes more than IE. When I develop, I almost always use IE because I know there will be less downtime from crashes and cache-related bugs.

Re:The browser should be functional (3, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644238)

"When I develop, I almost always use IE because I know there will be less downtime from crashes and cache-related bugs."

I prefer to develop using the Mozilla Suite (aka Seamonkey) or FireFox. I very rarely have more than one browser window open - I just Ctrl Tab though the tabs. This is not slow at all.

I have the Tidy plugin at the bottom right of the browser informing me of W3C code validity. MSIE can't do this. In my experience, Mozilla crashes no more than MSIE (about once every 2 weeks for me).

If you want to force Mozilla based browsers to download files every time, type about:config into the address bar. Then find browser.cache.check_doc_frequency and set it to 1 (it defaults to 3)

As a developer, in my dev environments I ensure that every page is set to expire immediately in the request header. (I have never had cache-related bugs from either MSIE or Mozilla.)

I have never had downtime due to "crashes and cache-related bugs". Maybe I'm just lucky?

Re:The browser should be functional (5, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644289)

Sorry? developping with MSIE?

MSIE's cache blows, MSIE's refresh blows, MSIE has no development tools (no JS console, no JS debugger even remotely close to Venkman, and the recent Web Dev Toolbar is sub-par compared to Chris Pederick's, including the godawful DOM Inspector), MSIE doesn't allow you to see the current (interpreted/DOM-modified) source of your web page, MSIE doesn't allow you to change your CSS on the fly.

Firefox does.

Dev'ing with MSIE is like ripping your arms off before starting to write a book, you can still do it but the extra pain and harshness ain't quite worth it.

Re:The browser should be functional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644671)

I agree.

FireFox leaks memory like a sieve and is S L O W at rendering. Sometimes the browser just locks up while it is rendering a page. This isn't a slow box either - 2Ghz /w 1GB of RAM.

MSIE works out much better for me.

Re:Google toolbar (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644135)

Wasn't the whole idea behind Firefox (Phoenix back then) was to be a much faster, more lightweight Mozilla?

Re:Google toolbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644177)

Time to switch to Opera, my friend.

Re:Google toolbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644202)

What is this, a Star Wars scroll?

"Open Source spies managed to steal the plans to Microsoft's ultimate weapon, FIREFOX, A browser with enough stablity to run at work"

Silly Speed Fetishes (5, Insightful)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644247)

13 extensions installed, still takes less than a second on mine. This is on a 1.5 GHz with 256 MB ram. Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer? Spyware, perhaps, from Internet Explorer use?

In any case, Firefox isn't really about windows - rather, tabs, which open in the background. If you learn to use that, you will get much better performance. IE meanwhile is designed to open new windows, and is also preloaded as part of the operating system. Obviously it has an advantage here.

Nor is it the fault of the Mozilla devteam that people are making, and using slow extensions. The whole point of firefox is the customisability. What is useless to you certainly isn't useless to other people. To people like ME, speed is itself useless - page download times massively eclipse time taken by the browser itself. The firefox developers can't be all things to all people. If speed is a priority over customisability and compatibility, perhaps you are better off using a different browser (like Opera, or maybe Lynx) instead.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (5, Insightful)

PhoenxHwk (254106) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644302)

I still have a gripe in this regard. Each tab should really open in its own thread, so that its loading and rendering does not stall the whole interface. Drives me nuts when I start opening a bunch of new tabs (a la while looking at the slashdot front page or other forums) and then I have to sit through a stall before opening a new one. That's one spot where I definitely prefer Opera.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644337)

Take it to bugzilla.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (1)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644397)

I've never had a tab load anything but instantly. I can open 20 new tabs before I can click on a button to open a 21st (using, say, right click on Latest Headlines and open in tabs). Sounds like you've got spyware. Having a borked Windows install or a Pentium 2 is not a reason to prefer Opera.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (1)

Malor (3658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644634)

If you use Acrobat Reader, the UI freeze on loading a PDF in a new tab is a well-known bug. I'm not sure if there will ever be a resolution... the last time I read about it, there seemed to be lots more finger-pointing than fixing.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (0)

timecop (16217) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644366)

Wow, did you like, totally miss the point?

Have you ever considered that some people have a way they do things?
I don't like tabbed UI.
It wastes space.
It doesnt integrate into my workflow.
Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab.
I like doing things MY way.

Why the fuck should I be forced to use tabbed UI in order to avoid what is obviously a bug in the software? Firefox/Mozilla take forever to open new window, pegging cpu at 100% while doing so. That is fact. No amount of trolling/bullshit/anti-microsoft FUD is going to change that. I've used firefox on a number of different systems, and its always SLOW. And please for fuck sake stop bringing up "spyware in IE" as the reason for firefox slowness. IF IT WAS SPYWARE's fault THEN IE WOULD BE JUST AS SLOW RIGHT? LOL.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644493)

Have you ever considered that some people have a way they do things?... Why the fuck should I be forced to use tabbed UI in order to avoid what is obviously a bug in the software?

Oh, I am so terribly sorry for not noticing the gun that the mozilla people are holding to your head.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644577)

Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab? How does that work? Why would one key combo be "a lot harder" than another?

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644754)

Do me a favor and hit Ctrl+Esc, and then d+f. Which one is easier?

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644910)

It wastes space.

F11

Pressing Ctrl-Tab is a lot harder than pressing Alt-Tab.

Yeah, right, the ALT and CTRL buttons are like, at least 0 inches apart, maybe up to 2 if your keyboard has these stupid windows keys, makes a heck of a difference.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644539)

One possible speed increase (on Windows) can be acheived by adding " /Prefetch:1" after the target portion in the properties of the icon(s) you use to open Firefox. Then subsequent launches of Firefox should happen quicker.

Re:Silly Speed Fetishes (1)

oh_bugger (906574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644632)

does that really work? I'm no expert on the fiddly bits of windows but there's sites like this [edbott.com] that say it doesnt.

IE is preloaded in memory, mozilla seamonkey too (2, Informative)

free2 (851653) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644249)

if you like the fact that IE is preloaded in memory, you should try mozilla seamonkey (the full suite) that offers this option too

I know what you mean (2, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644268)

one of my extensions used to check for update every time a new window was installed, thinkg was the update web site has disappeared so it was waiting to time out. I managed to stop this behaviour using /etc/hosts. Perhaps your extensions are doing simlar things. Time to tcpdump!

Re:Google toolbar (1, Funny)

The New Andy (873493) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644270)

On my computer doing some time trials these are the results I get for loading times:

Firefox:
68, 69, 69, 72, 65

IE
81, 81, 75, 71, 75

Opera
93, 103, 103, 107, 103

All of these were timed by hand using a stopwatch, so the results aren't perfect. The units are 1/100s, and each test was opening a new browser window from the exectable (not from within the running application). My system is a P4 2.4 Mobile, 512, XP Pro. Each application was loaded 5 times untimed before being timed to make sure they were cached.

My firefox install is also the one with the most crap in it (15 extensions), with IE having the google toolbar, and Opera having nothing extra.

From this, I'd say that the performance in firefox is pretty awesome when it comes to startup times. (Or my IE is really slow)

Re:Google toolbar (2, Insightful)

Taladar (717494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644320)

All of these were timed by hand using a stopwatch, so the results aren't perfect. The units are 1/100s
And from this I'd say you are nuts. You can't stop anything below a second by hand accurately.

A successful troll... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644296)

Well, congratulations, you've caught a bunch of people that (somehow) have even less knowledge than you. Get back in your cave...

Seamonkey *is* designed for speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644318)

I don't know if you've tried the next-generation suite based off the old Mozilla browser, but SeaMonkey [mozilla.org] is amazingly fast on my computer. It loads in about a second, compared to about 3 seconds for Firefox. I am a former Internet Explorer user who finally gave in to Firefox when it hit 1.0. Unfortunately, with each release, it seems to get slower and take up more memory. I've switched to Seamonkey because it integrates an email client with the browser and uses the same amount of memory as Firefox alone (I had never used Thunderbird, I always stuck with Outlook Express). Extensions like Adblock and Multizilla make the Seamonkey transition worthwhile. It wouldn't hurt to try it out.

Re:Google toolbar (1)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644345)

Wow, spend a few of your precious seconds and look at the big picture.
Compare the time it takes to open the browser to the time you will spend browsing. Unless you use Firefox for less than a minute before closing it again, the time to open is meaningless.

This kinda reminds me of people who spend 5 minutes looking for a good parking spot which will save them 30 seconds of walking, just to spend the next half hour walking around the grocery store.

Re:Google toolbar (3, Funny)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644347)

Anyone else find it humorous that a guy named timecop is complaining about the time it takes to open an app?

Re:Google toolbar (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644351)

"should NOT take more than 0.01second. IE6SP1 opens instantly,"

That's because its library files are loaded in to memory the moment you boot your windows installation . Its really quite easy to start up instantly if you have already started

Re:Google toolbar (1)

synaptiv (892363) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644368)

Yes and IE is also built into the system like a shell with processes that are already running before IE starts up, food for thought. Besides, you are always free to help in the development of firefox, well here is your chance.

Re:Google toolbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644470)

It's not the Mozilla team that makes these extensions. And you are certainly free no to install it. Those who want them can, however, which I think is great.

Re:Google toolbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644514)

sorry, I replied on the wrong post

Re:Google toolbar (1)

lscotte (450259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644627)

As most of you know, the more extensions you add to FIREFOX the slower it becomes. With standard firefox taking ~1 second to open a new window

As most of you know, timecop (16217) needs to lay off the crack. Perhaps you are still using your mommie's 386; opening a new window is instantaneous with about a dozen extensions loaded.

Re:Google toolbar (1)

fupeg (653970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644645)

Perhaps it's time FIREFOX/Mozilla developers stop adding useless features, and concentrate on making FIREFOX *fast*?
I think that is exactly their focus. Compare any of the 1.0.x builds vs. the 1.5 beta . The beta is much faster. Part of how they've made it faster is by keeping it slim, i.e. minimal features. Of course more extensions means that those extensions will require some RAM and some CPU cycles. Just how much RAM/CPU they consume is a function of the extensions, not Firefox. Of course there is some overhead for Firefox to "manage" the extensions, but many people have noted that they have lots of extensions without performance problems so that overhead is not too bad.

Re:Google toolbar (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644670)

I've noticed that greasemonkey is the most sluggish addin to date, the stalling problem has gotten noticable since installing it (some complex pages take ~10seconds of freeze). I suppose it could be the same with any addin that scans the entire page and makes modifications to it.

Add to that the fact there are 5 different addins all doing slightly different things to the page, but each scanning them seperately, I tend to look for addins and scripts which combine actions and modifications in one sweep (for instance remove redirects, and remove mouseevent handlers).

Using javascript is cool, but when are we going to get a faster model for precompiled addins?

As for crashing, I haven't had FF crash on me for a while (since I uninstalled forecastfox actually, but thats another story).

Re:Google toolbar (1)

FinalCut (555823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644778)

I wish I could say the same. After installing xp sp2 it takes apx ten of second for a second IE window to open. If i right click and say open link in a new window it takes even longer.

The first IE window opens fast - but that is it.

I'm close to doing a complete reinstall it is so tedious. Especially since ESPN fantasy football doesn't work quite right in FF.

Re:Google toolbar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644917)

Great Troll!!!1 A++ Would use again!!!!1111oneone!!!

Google and Beta (5, Funny)

Kylere (846597) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644106)

I wish Microsoft and Google could merge, then Microgle would produce beta products that worked already, and alpha products that are not impressive enough to upgrade to!

Re:Google and Beta (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644877)

it'd have to be goosoft, because that's how their corprank sorts, now

Worth noting.. (5, Informative)

footissimo (869107) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644108)

..that google suggest is available as a seperate extension [google.com] (and is quite useful)

Also (1)

heavy snowfall (847023) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644248)

Also worth noting: Google suggest itself is itself still in beta [google.com] , but apparently, that doesn't stop them from including it in a non-beta product...

--
Best firefox extensions [arpx.net]

Why RedHat only? (4, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644109)

I have seen that when most software companies are to release software for Linux, the impression they give is that Linux *is* RedHat, which is wrong. Take Google for example. I have just installed the toolbar on Kubuntu with Firefox 1.0.7 with absolutely no hitches, but Google advertises RedHat alone. The same goes for Yahoo with their online games. These games run fine on any Linux distro I have tried with java properly configured, but Yahoo says somewhere on their site that [name-of-game] is not compatible with Unix or Macintosh computers. Heck RedHat is primarily a server OS...sheesh!

Re:Why RedHat only? (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644209)

I don't really know what rock you're living under, but Linux *is* Redhat to a whole lot of people, especially PHBs. Thus, if you advertise to your clients, they understand what you are talking about.

Anyone who's educated enough to know what Linux is, knows that Redhat isn't the only distribution, but if you've only ever heard of Redhat Linux, then there's a huge chance you've never heard of any other kind of Linux.

More than anything, it's marketing.

Oh yeah, and Yahoo says it's not compatible with Unix or Macintosh operating systems; Never said anything about OS X or Linux (both are Unix derivatives, but are not UNIX).

Re:Why RedHat only? (1)

rheotaxis (528103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644328)

OK, it is just marketing, but IMHO it's wrong. Don't I just need to know the Linux kernel version that the binaries were built with, so I know if I have up-to-date libraries? OK, so we don't expect most people to worry about libraries, etc. Still, I think we need one single "metric" that gives all Linux users a clue about what they should know, and that IMHO is the kernel version.

Up to date libraries (2, Informative)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644383)

Don't I just need to know the Linux kernel version that the binaries were built with, so I know if I have up-to-date libraries?

That is called the Linux Standard Base, to which about all commercial and several non commercial linux distributors adhere to. So, if it is LSB compatible (would be a handy note from google), it will run on Redhat, but also on Debian, SuSE, mandrake and many others.

Re:Why RedHat only? (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644406)

if you've only ever heard of Redhat Linux, then there's a huge chance you've never heard of any other kind of Linux
I'd say the probability's pretty high...

Re:Why RedHat only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644445)

Hehe, if you only have one computer, there's also a huge chance you don't have two computers.

Re:Why RedHat only? (2, Informative)

cerelib (903469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644409)

They probably do that because they really do not care about supporting every linux distro. They are just throwing linux a bone. Do you think google is going to test it on Debian, Suse, Redhat, Gentoo, and Slack? Why would they? They know that most distros can at least be configured to have the same things as Redhat so just test it on Redhat and let the linux users figure it out. Like you said, it did not deter you from trying it on Kubuntu. It is cost-benefit. The linux community likes the fact that they released anything for linux and that is all they wanted. They still know that the Windows user base is the big target.

Not for Deer Park (4, Informative)

broothal (186066) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644120)

Please note, that the toolbar is incompatible with Firefox 1.5 (Deer park).

Re:Not for Deer Park (1)

timdorr (213400) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644502)

You can force it to the compatible with the Nightly Tester Tools [mozilla.org] . However, at least on my system, it broke the ability for form fields to have that little drop down with saved information. Unfortunately, that killed this extension for me, so I'm using the A9 toolbar instead (and as a bonus, now I have a small discount at Amazon).

Slashdot playing favorites? (-1, Offtopic)

jamesgamble (917138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644123)

I submitted this story on Friday morning, with almost the exact same wording, and it did not get posted. How come when someone else submits it TWO days after the event, it posts? Is Slashdot playing favorites?

Re:Slashdot playing favorites? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644264)

The FAQ clearly states that submissions from bland usernames will be rejected outright. Try changing it to "HOTBabe18NotWearingPantiesRightNow" and your articles will be accepted immediately.

Also, try lowering your UID. 917138 is awfully high to be taken seriously by the editorial staff.

Re:Slashdot playing favorites? (1)

rheotaxis (528103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644384)

Just curious, has /. UID 1,000,000 been issued yet? Can we get it on eBay?

Official (3, Interesting)

michaelzhao (801080) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644136)

This is the only official Google release. Its really not that big of a deal when there are several other 3rd party Firefox extentions that add the same functionality. The only thing it does different, is add the Google suggest which I have found annoying to begin with. However, it is still a big win for Google as they have a bunch of happy Firefox users. If those happy Firefox users also happen to be stockholders, well... you get the picture.

"I already have googlesearch in Firefox" (2, Informative)

Sweetshark (696449) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644146)

Well, yes guys, there is a searchtool in Firefox. However, the googletoolbar ist more a google-Setup-GUI. Its even usefull when its hidden.
  • Contextmenu with "search for selected text", backward links, similar pages, and translation
  • google suggest in der searchbar
  • setup for hightlight colors etc.
  • etc.
Its really pretty usefull.

Re:"I already have googlesearch in Firefox" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644795)

Contextmenu with "search for selected text"

This has been a standard part of the firefox context-menu for years... (as has the google search box, and the keyword search)

My 'puter's suggestions aren't usually smart (1)

almound (552970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644167)

Every time something pops up on my 'puter's screen the message is generally so off-base as to be laughable. ("We're sorry, your computer has commited an irrecoverable error," for example.)

Google's "Similar pages" link found next to each and every hit from their search engine produces a ton of unusuable schlock. Google is gonna have to be pretty smart if they can come up with anything that gives even remotely relevant advice from a toolbar.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:My 'puter's suggestions aren't usually smart (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644323)

Is a "'puter" what they give you when you sign up for AOL?

I know I will probably get modded down (5, Insightful)

iamnerd (917614) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644204)

but am I the only one that thinks toolbars are a waste of space?

Re:I know I will probably get modded down (3, Funny)

myukew (823565) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644299)

no, theyre useful [www.nnm.ru]

Re:I know I will probably get modded down (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644315)

Depends of the features, I find the Web Developper extension is much more accessible and useable as a toolbar than a contextual menu (it does both), and some toolbars such as the StumbleUpon one can be hidden with a keystroke (CTRL+F9).

Most Firefox toolbar builders are smart enough to at least include an on/off switch button to display/hide theirs even when they don't actually register keystrokes (both platypus and Web Dev Toolbar have one for example)

Re:Waste of space (1)

bwilson (27514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644613)

I agree that toolbars are a waste of space. Which is why I think the best feature of this new version (which I haven't seen mentioned here yet) is support for the toolbar customize palette.

Right-click on any toolbar and go to customize. Now you can drag your favorite buttons from the Google toolbar onto your regular toolbar. Now, *turn off* the Google toolbar.

RE: Toolbars (1)

BACPro (206388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644618)

No, not at all.

I use a commercial app that retains the browser toolbar, add a couple of its own, then opens a PDF under that. The PDF toolbars are moveable, but who wants to do that every time? Customizations are not sticky and I am tired of clicking OK for "a newer version is available... blah blah blah.) The check box: "don't show this again" is not retained between browser sessions... /rant

This results in a viewable window less than 50% of the screen dimension.

F11 (fullscreen) helps somewhat, but even the F11 shortcut is hit and miss.

M

Does it block popups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644210)

I won't use it unless it blocks popups!

Re:Does it block popups? (3, Informative)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644243)

Actually, Firefox already blocks popups [mozilla.org] , so Google's Toolbar doesn't need to block them, unless you're looking for a popup blocker blocker.

Talking of Firefox... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644230)

I wanted the old behaviour where middle-clicking would open in a new window, and I found an about:config key to fix this months ago, which worked fine. I could also middle-click on the home button to open my homepage in a new tab.

Now I've been upgrading and uninstalling a bunch of extensions today, and I've messed it up so that middle-clicking on the home button opens the home page in a new window, not a new tab. Any ideas how I can get the old behaviour back?

Re:Talking of Firefox... (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644330)

Have you installed any tab-related extension? There are quite a lot out of there, including Tabbrowser Extension, Tabbrowser Preference and TabMix (which are "packages", big extensions with lots of features) and many single feature ones.

Check your extension list for them.

Oh, and I'd advise you to install TabMix Plus (2.4.1 beta) to handle your tabbed browsing needs, it's stable and gives quite a lot of options (TBE is much more configurable, but even it's author considers it as an unstable crash prone piece of junk...)

Google suggest isn't new (3, Informative)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644240)

I've been using the toolbar, along with Google Suggest in Firefox for several months. It ain't new. Marginally useful, but it certainly isn't "new".

Re:Google suggest isn't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644450)

But it is a Google product that isn't Beta any longer. THAT'S NEW!

And before they start... (0, Troll)

bugbeak (711163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644277)

Let's please not cry lack of privacy just because there are useful suggestions.

Okay?

and for everyone that hates on google (2, Interesting)

k3v0 (592611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644297)

because they don't come out with linux versions:
Windows XP/2000 SP3+, Mac OS X 10.2+, or Red Hat Linux 8.0+

Re:and for everyone that hates on google (1)

Andrew_T366 (759304) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644675)

Why are XP and 2000 SP3+ the only versions of Windows the Google toolbar for Firefox is compatible with? This is the only Firefox extension I know of that's incapable of working on Windows 9x.

The alphabet according to google suggest (4, Interesting)

markh1967 (315861) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644381)

a is for amazon
b is for bbc
c is for currency converter
d is for dictionary
e is for ebay
f is for firefox
g is for gmail
h is for hotmail
i is for ikea
j is for jokes
k is for kelly blue book
l is for lyrics
m is for mapquest
n is for news
o is for orbitz
p is for paris hilton
q is for quotes
r is for ryanair
s is for spybot
t is for target
u is for ups
v is for valentines day
w is for weather
x is for xbox
y is for yahoo
z is for zip codes
1 is for 1
2 is for 24
3 is for 3m
4 is for 411
5 is for 50 cent
6 is for 60 minutes
7 is for 7th heaven
8 is for 89.com
9 is for 911
0 is for 02

Re:The alphabet according to google suggest (2, Interesting)

Pneuma ROCKS (906002) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644460)

So, if somebody produces a new product or company and expects to be google's favorite, they should try and use a first letter with a "weaker" association, say ryanair. God know you can't beat Paris Hilton. Not for the next 15 minutes, at least.

Re:The alphabet according to google suggest (1)

GrungyLotG (890944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644585)

8 is for 89.com
Am I the only one that feels that /. contributed much to this ranking? (89.com is a porn directory)

Re:The alphabet according to google suggest (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644659)

with all the pr0n on the internet, I was thinking 6 was gonna give another two digit number.

djcc

Re:The alphabet according to google suggest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644861)

Numbers are not part of the alphabet. =)

Spell Check (4, Informative)

SumDog (466607) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644473)

I think the most useful feature of the google toolbar is the spell check. Many places, such as slashdot, don't have spell check and some places, such as Livejournal, have spell check but it really sucks.

I realize now that there are probably many other firefox extentions out there with spell check, but the first one I came across and used was in the google toolbar.

I currently use it with Gentoo and on some firefox releases I had some trouble with the toolbar crashing/hanging as well as the spell check correction box appearing half way down the page. I am anxious to try out this new release and see if a lot of these issue have been solved.

Re:Spell Check (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13644629)

many other firefox extentions out there with

Not using that spellchecker right now, I see.

Re:Spell Check (1)

Mechcozmo (871146) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644894)

OS X-- System wide spell checking. Instead of a million different spell checkers, there is just one, standard, system of checking your spelling.

Something that I would like to see copied into a Linux distro, as it is extremely helpful.

Slow script warning (2, Informative)

nonpareility (822891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644495)

I hope they've fixed the bug that caused "A script on this page is causing mozilla to run slowly. If it continues to run, your computer may become unresponsive. Do you want to abort the script?" to show up. Extensions that don't work correctly is one thing, but it's unacceptable when they affect other parts of the browser [mozillazine.org] .

Better yet - try Yahoo! instant search (2, Interesting)

mrklin (608689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644541)

Try http://instant.search.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] Get answers as you type.

I have also found that in Yahoo! advanced search (http://search.yahoo.com/web/advanced?ei=UTF-8 [yahoo.com] ) you can now search for Creative Commons content!

Google remains my primary search engine but Yahoo! is an extremely close second with results every bit as relevant.

What do you mean by Beta? (3, Funny)

gaanagaa (784648) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644565)

I thought "Google Beta" was the full name and "Beta" was the surname for Google.

now it's opera's turn (1)

TTL0 (546351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644573)

now that they finished the FF toolbar they can get started on one for opera.

Similar search for Safari (including suggest) (1)

waffffffle (740489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644780)

http://www.inquisitorx.com/ [inquisitorx.com]

Inquisitor puts Google Suggest into the search field in the Safari toolbar. You can also map different key commands (such as control-enter) to different search sites. I often will use Google Suggest's autocomplete to help me type something but search for the term in wikipedia.

Right now this software is free but this same author used a bait-and-switch model with his RSS reader software, NewsFire. NewsFire was free until version 1.0, which became nagware, after myself and many others got hooked on the software. I am not averse to paying for shareware but I feel like the expectations of the software should be properly set up front. I thought more highly of the software because it was free, which lowers the standard by which I would evaluate such software. Regardless, I still like NewsFire and have paid for my copy. This author has also been accused of selling GPL'd code as part of his Acquisition gnutella software. This guy makes some good stuff but I question his morals.

Big fucken woopty doo!! (1, Troll)

LS (57954) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644870)

Isn't there anything more interesting going on?? When did simple toolbar software become big news? If we're going to be talking about toolbars, why not something on one of the other 1000 toolbars out there that do more interesting shit? I think Slashdot has a serious case of celebrity obsession (or greased palms). This reminds of the fucking 5th masturbation in an hour when only air comes out...

News? (1)

Bubba (11258) | more than 8 years ago | (#13644875)


Welcome to last week! It's not even the top item on Google's blog anymore: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>